BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

117 results for “section 68”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,574Mumbai3,033Bangalore1,106Chennai751Ahmedabad737Karnataka667Jaipur583Kolkata553Hyderabad545Indore394Chandigarh297Pune277Cochin228Surat213Raipur189Visakhapatnam152Rajkot117Agra107Telangana105Lucknow88Nagpur88Cuttack86Calcutta66Allahabad62Guwahati58SC53Amritsar50Ranchi46Patna21Dehradun21Jodhpur21Jabalpur16Varanasi13Rajasthan11Orissa9Panaji6Kerala5Uttarakhand3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Addition to Income61Section 6846Section 26339Section 271(1)(c)35Section 13224Disallowance23Penalty22Section 25021Section 153A

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

section 68 was outside the purview of the assessment proceedings. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by ld. PCIT. One of the reasons for selection of case under scrutiny is large share premium received during the year. Share premium is paid as part of investment in share capital of the company, hence while examining the share premium

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

18
Section 14716
TDS14

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 68

47,717/-. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act determining total income of " 26,12,75,610/- after making the following additions: I.T.A No. 117/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT Sr. Amount (Rs.) Nature Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 68

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 355/RJT/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

68 of the Act contemplates where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 13/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 17/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 175/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S VIKAS SANITARYWARES,, MORBI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 396/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 68

47,654/- under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212,\nthe relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench are as under:\n\"So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the\nassessee

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212,\nthe relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench are as under:\n\"So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the\nassessee

RATHOD HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO.,,RAJKOT GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/RJT/2013[1991-92]Status: FixedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri Namita Khurana, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.9,221/-. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 29.3.1996 determining total income at Rs.3,47

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

68,19,216/-\n59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/-\n98,81,477/-\n2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/-\n2,34,51,085/-\n5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

ITA 135/RJT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

68,19,216/-\n59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/-\n98,81,477/-\n2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/-\n2,34,51,085/-\n5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

ITA 31/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/-\nIII\nBharat I Bhatia\n2009-10\n3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/-\nIV\nBharat I Bhatia\n2010-11\n7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/-\nV\nBharat I. Bhatia\n2011

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 577/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 240/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

47,72,707. The case was selected through "CASS" selection for complete Scrutiny and the AO vide order, under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21-12-2018 allowed the loss to be carried forwarded for Rs. 11,42,74,707/-. 4.1 The assessee company had issued 1,85,00,000 equity shares at Rs. 10 each